Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

I’m an attractive, caring, honest, good hearted women in search of bilover to explore bisexuality. I, so I got a profile(lily green) on –Datebi dot c’0m–. It’s the first and safe place for men and women looking for intimate encounters, casual encounters. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! ^_^

In an election year battle mixing birth control, religion and politics, Democrats narrowly blocked an effort by Senate Republicans to overturn President Barack Obama’s order that most employers or their insurers cover the cost of contraceptives.

Give us a better president. It sure as hell won’t be Santorum/Gingrich/Romney and the last GOPer was the worst POTUS in history. Huntsman could have been – but the nutfucks on the right didn’t like him.

I agree, but, instead of just voting for the “lesser of two evils,” why not just stand on principle? I know my one vote won’t make a shred of difference in who ultimately wins, so why not vote for the best candidate? You could at least send a message to those you know.

The measure is kind of bizarre, since they’re measuring the percentage of households rather than the percentage of individuals. Households tend to be smaller and more numerous now than they were in 1973, so it’s more likely for a given household to have no guns now, even if individual gun ownership rates are constant or growing.

Yeah, the gun sales show that they’re full of shit. Sales are through the roof, you can’t turn around without hitting a newbie in a gun shop, CCW classes are full, etc. There’s no way in hell the number of individual gun owners is decreasing.

Early in the news about Reubens, he said that he wouldn’t drive ovals, since his wife didn’t want him doing that. Not sure if that still applies, but I’m happy for him and doubly pleased that he and TK are teammates.

I’m fine with him not doing ovals, since ovals are like watching paint dry on growing grass.

“Sheriff” Arpaio has been on the birther bandwagon for a long time. He and Russell Pearce were tied at the hip for years and he likely had a hand in Pearce’s attempted unconstitutional law challenging the citizenship of candidates. Arpaio is less a political opportunist than a legitimate full-blown racist sociopath with a love of corruption. I look forward to the day that he leaves office and his successor audits the books and finds out just how much corruption we haven’t found out about yet.

I will give Bloomberg credit for saying this: “If they care about innocent people and police officers being shot, they should be strengthening laws ? as we have done in New York ? to keep guns away from criminals, not weakening them,” Bloomberg said. “This is only going to make matters worse.”

At least he knows the difference in an innocent person and a policeman.

That worthless fuck sent undercover NYPD cops to my beloved commonwealth to attempt straw purchases. McDonnell, who was AG at the time, told Bloomberg if he tried it again he’d prosecute NY’s finest for the felonies they were committing in VA.

I like my governor quite a lot actually. Much better then the last one.

Police don’t need a warrant to search a cell phone for its number, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit, stems from an Indiana case in which prosecutors used evidence that police found on cell phones at the arrest scene to convict a suspect on drug charges.

Posner’s core argument is that the threat of terrorism is so “very great” and “very novel” — “sui generis” — that the Constitution must be intepreted differently than it ever was before in order to deal with the threat (there is no transcript available — all quotes are from my listening to the podcast). Posner repeatedly claims in the interview that “the Constitution is flexible” and he even says that it is a “loose garment, not shrink wrap.” Thus, we “have to interpret the Constitution in a way to enable us to cope with unanticipated dangers.”

“Posner’s…characterization of the Constitution as this…document which must be shaped and molded by political events led Reynolds to ask the right if not obvious question — isn’t Posner advocating the very theory of a “living, breathing Constitution” which conservatives have long claimed to despise, even consider tyrannical?

Posner paused and stuttered quite a bit after being asked that question, and then admitted, quite astonishingly, that he “hadn’t thought about that” painfully obvious point before. But he then told Reynolds that he’s “right” about the fact that he, Posner, has an elastic view of the Constitution — that it is a “flexible” document. Posner then justified that view by essentially denegrating the Constitution as obsolete and useless in light of this grave new threat. The Constitution is nothing but “an 18th Century document,” Posner complained, and “the notion that [the Founders] had the answers to 20th Cenutry problems . . . is, I think, wrong and dangerous.”

“Posner’s…characterization of the Constitution as this…document which must be shaped and molded by political events”

Uh, doesn’t that make the constitution pretty much worthless? The point of the thing was (yes, past tense) to keep the government in line. If the government can change it at will for political purposes, WIH do we have it at all?

Well since he thinks the Founders couldn’t possibly have the answers to any of our problems, and that it’s “dangerous” to rely on their guidance, I’d guess the good conservative judge agrees with the radical left…there is no reason to have it at all.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think it depends on the scope of the decision. If it’s just the number, I think that’s reasonable. I hope the summary is inaccurate and this only applies to the number, rather than general searching.

It wouldn’t be mostly for show for me. If their backbone is up to the gigabit commitment, I’d have iSCSI drives that could be shared with friends and family performing almost exactly as a local drive. Offsite backups become a snap. Everyone could just point their Picasa backups to the new Z: drive and the backup would go to a relative’s house.

And that’s just family stuff. For the company this kind of network speed means mobile workers have the identical computing experience to local workers. Running big analytics cubes from home becomes possible, for example. As does running heavy client software remotely (many heavy apps will fail with low bandwidth to their data servers, particularly older ones).

Not to mention bittorrent. Universal gigabit connections would make bitttorrent an absolute torrent of bits.

Is Stratfor a joke? Well, I know I stopped subscribing to their free email because it was so wrong, so often. It didn’t provide much actionable intelligence, and was really, really wrong about O&G stuff, which I always assumed was their main client-base.

According to the most recent survey of Georgia voters, a Survey USA/WXIA-TV poll taken Feb. 23 to 26, Gingrich maintains a 15-point lead over Santorum, 39 percent to 24 percent. Romney placed third with 23 percent of the vote.

Oh, Georgia, you bunch of braindead rascals. Giving the country Gingrich in the first place, and then voting for more of that terrible. Politician-wise, you’re like the Illinois of the South.

We’re still treated to the devil-may-care cop going over the line, bending the rules to get the bad guys. Or the two lone plain-clothes serving an arrest warrant on the dangerous thug watching tv at his apartment…

In the first case, the devil-may-care cop would be absolutely well within the law and the constitution– he’d be “following procedure”, and in the latter, totally unrealistic because there’s no SWAT team shooting the family dog.

“It’s not even clear that we need a rule of law specific to cell phones or other computers. If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner’s address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number,” they wrote in the opinion.

The police used the number they got from looking at the phone to get a search warrant for the call history for that phone number.

Not exactly searching the cell phone without a warrant. They got the phone number without a warrant.

I thought from the headline that the courts had approved searching the contents of some smart phone without a warrant.

This is what I thought. But the linked article is highly schizophrenic. It discusses an attempt to find the number of the cell phone, the subpeona of the cell phone company records– which resulted in fruit of the poison tree, blah blah.

This is hardly searching through someone’s cell phone to review text messages, videos or pictures etc.

Does it pave the way for that? Hopefully our resident legal eagles can weigh in.

I think I’d been trying to use that for a blog post for a couple of years. Thanks to Obama and the Birthers for giving me the excuse.

How things have changed, too. I used to think the media would run some oh-my-god-the-government-did-what? story, but I’m not so sure now. I think that they often have their hand forced now, thanks to the Internet, but that’s not the way it should be.

1. No, though I admit I gave them a hearing in the beginning. It quickly became clear they had nothing.

2. Yes, that’s quite clear. The closest plausible counter-claim is the “Obama inherited UK citizenship through his father.” This is wrong on its face since US law governs here and it dictates citizenship regardless of parental nationality. I just like it because it raises the point that Obama is, by the strict meaning of the word, a bastard. Obama Sr. was already married when he “married” Ann Dunham, rendering the marriage void. At the time, only legitimate children of male British citizens could inherit citizenship in the situation birthers are claiming happened.

Obama has been certified as President by every electoral authority in this country. If it turns out he isn’t a natural born citizen of the United States, it would warrant a review of the certification process, but not necessarily impeachment.

This Birfer shit is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent opposing Obama’s actual policies.

I saw the oddest thing on the Internet last night. A Reuben pizza. It had all of the Reuben stuff–Swiss cheese, corned beef, kraut, special mystery sauce–and was on some odd crust. Maybe sweet potato? Not sure why it wasn’t rye.

Now I love Reubens, which are the King of Sandwiches, and I love pizza. But together? Maybe it’s actually great, but the word abomination comes to mind.

While he did drop out before anyone made into an issue (what sunk him was his change of position on the Vietnam War), the consensus from what I’ve read is that most people thought he was a natural born US citizen since his parents never renounced their US citizenship when they fled to the polygamist Mormon colony in Mexico.

There was even a law passed by the Congress in 1790 saying that the children of US citizens born overseas are considered natural-born.

Speaking of Mormonism, how do I sign up for some of this postmortem baptism shit? I don’t want to deal with any of the God/Jesus/Allah/magic-underwear hassle while I’m alive but once my ashes are scattered in the backyard, why not? Anyone got a link to an online signup form?

Correct me if I’m wrong (like there’s any chance you won’t) but Pascal’s wager states that if you live your life like you believe in God and it turns out there is no God, you’ve lost nothing. I see a lot of opportunity cost there that he didn’t account for.

what the appeals court said was that no warrant is needed merely to use the phone to go to the settings and find out the PHONE # of the phone, so that warrant/subpeonas FOR the call records could be applied for

it did NOT say that they could search the phone iow get a list of calls made, or read the text messages etc. wtihout a warrant

it only referred to looking in the phone to get it’s PHONE # for identification purposes

that’s a BIG DIFFERENCE

we are talking identifying data, NOT personal messages, lists of phone calls, etc.

Right, because as long as that distinction is clearly drawn in the ruling, the police will ONLY use the phone to look up its number in order to subpoena the phone records. They’re just going to go in, retrieve the phone number, then shut it off again – that’s it, swear to God.

It was a search incident to arrest, which doesn’t require a warrant anyway.

As the court noted, if the arrested person had a diary in his pocket, under established case law no warrant would be needed for the police to read it…so a cell phone isn’t any different if it’s not password protected.

The Birthers are all retards. Don’t you think that the Bush-era FBI, CIA, and every other government agaency didn’t secretly look into Obama’s background and if they found anything disqualifying they wouldn’t have used it to make sure Obama didn’t become President in the first place? Now I’m as anti-Obama as any American with a shred of common sense but at least I don’t express my anti-Obama-ism in a manner that makes me look like an idiot!

“We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Insurers, she said, don’t need an invitation to deny coverage for medical treatment. “A lot of them don’t have any consciences. They’ll take it.”

The administration justified the mandate partly on the basis that paying for contraceptives will result is savings down the road. So Boxer believes these insurance companies, absent a moral objection, are going to forego such profits just because?

“This proposal isn’t limited to contraception, nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to,” said Secretary of Health and Human Resources Kathleen Sebelius.”

Your employer not offering coverage for a specific treatment is NOT restricting access to that treatment. That being said, why shouldn’t be free to offer whatever level of coverage that makes sense to them, be the rationale moral, economic or otherwise?